Communist Ideology briefly explained in complex terminology. The reader is taken through the history of origination of Communism with emphasis on the need to stabilize the living standards of the people of the world under one common principle of equality.Some basic principles of Communism like abolition of private property acquiring rights, abolition of inheritance rights and nationalization of production are worth noting down. The emergence of the powerful Bourgeois (middle class) from the feudal lordship and its dominance over a period of time leading to subjugation of the Proletarian (working class) has given a new meaning to Communist ideology.The major aim of Communism is to raise the Proletarian to the stage of political ruling class thus overthrowing the Bourgeois supremacy. The Communists therefore support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things in the Bourgeois society.The reader might not understand many terms used by the authors unless and until he has an idea about the economic scenario of his country. Quite complex at times and the ideology goes above the heads of many until read more than once. This hand book gives the basic idea of how a Communist Manifesto works but does not spell out much about the benefits of the ideology at large. It could have been better if some illustrations were included in between, for easy understanding.

A concept born in a simpler time used as an excuse for many things from Socialism to controlled capitalism. As with any pivotal work, one should read it for his/her self. There is always the chance of misinterpretation by an individual, but if you do not read this then you are just accepting someone's word anyway.

This is more than an economics book it is a way of life. It sounds good on paper but makes many assumptions. Instead of worrying about workability, look at the logic that is built on assumptions of that time (written, in 1848). Add this to your library.

You can pick a side (pro or con) and make a stand if you like; but look at the size of this book and realize that many people will just use the title and build their own case. You will have read the real thing.

Be sure to balance it with "The Capitalist Manifesto" by Louis O. Kelso

It should be stressed for the novice to this subject, all three volumes of Capital provide a scientific explanation, as Marx put it, of how the Capitalist system works from the perspective that labor is the underlying essence of all value. If one accepts the basic assumptions made early in Chapter 1 of Capital, Volume 1--that abstract labor is the source of value(1)--Marx's logic flows well, not only through Volume 1, but all the way through Volume 3.

If one is looking to fault Marx's economics based on the works of Capital, one will come up empty not only because Marx's logic is flawless, but as economist and former Marxist Thomas Sowell says, " ...Marx considered the idea of proving a concept to be ridiculous. Moreover, Engels had asserted...that one only proves one's ignorance of dialectics by thinking of it as a means by which things can be proved."(2)

However, there was one instance where Marx let his dialectical guard down, allowing for an empirical objection that would consign all of Marx's works for naught. Sowell himself touches upon the specific passage where Marx cornered himself, but doesn't appreciate the full ramifications of Marx's observation.

In the "The Poverty of Philosophy" (1847) Marx says, "In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The handmill [a productive force] gives you society with the feudal lord, the steam-mill [a productive force], society with the industrial capitalist."(3)

Sowell argues regarding Marx's handmill/steam-mill analogy, "If read literally, these words suggest a one-way causation and explanation of given states of being rather than of transformation. But that is clearly inconsistent both with Marx's and Engels' own treatment of history and with the dialectical conception of reciprocal interaction. These words are perhaps best read as epigrams-and of the dangers of misunderstanding inherent in that writing style."(4)

Is Sowell correct? Was Marx merely being terse with his handmill/steam-mill analogy?

While Sowell is indeed correct that Marx and Engles viewed the unfolding of history as a "dialectical conception of reciprocal interaction", that observation does not answer the question: What comes first? The machinery, or new social relations, derived from machines, that interacts with the old social relations to produce the new hybrid social relations? Marx was emphatic that machines came first, then all else followed them. In his retort to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's observation that the use of machines was a consequence of the division of labor, Marx writes:

"Thus it is slapping history in the face to want to begin by the division of labor in general, in order to get subsequently to a specific instrument of production, machinery.

Machinery is no more an economic category than the bullock that drags the plough. Machinery is merely a productive force. The modern workshop, which depends on the application of machinery, is a social production relation, an economic category."(5)

The problem with this empirical observation is that before there was a steam mill there already existed an industrial capitalist society that not only contained the requisite industrial capitalist mode of production that manufactured the necessary constituent parts that went into the creation of the steam mill (there were many companies involved in the problem-solving for and manufacture of components that went into a steam engine), but this pre-steam mill society also contained an already sophisticated industrial capitalist labor force that made the constituent parts for the steam mill, not to mention built the steam mill itself. Contemporaneous with the industrial capitalist production of steam engines, there existed the production of the machines that the steam engines would power. In other words, the steam mill presupposes an already functioning industrial capitalist society! Marx's rebuke to Proudhon is a tautological response that also fails to recognize that a steam engine is made up of independently manufactured parts that predates the manufacture of a steam engine with those independently manufactured parts! Marx fails to mention this double inconsistency with his material "productive forces" empirical observation.

Simplified, Marx is speaking of the root cause for industrial Capitalism...the steam mill, but that beginning of industrial Capitalism only exists to the extent of (1) the division of labor that manufactured the component parts going into the steam-mill; and (2) the capital/producer goods industries that manufactured the constituent parts that went into the construction of the steam-mill.

When the first steam-mill was completed supposedly, according to Marx, 'giving' a society with industrial Capitalism, in fact there could be no 'giving' of such a society since the steam-mill when completed wasn't in operation. In fact, that which actually 'gave' a society with industrial Capitalism were those factors of production that produced the steam-mill!

Marx behaves like a child throwing a tantrum: Machines come first, then all else follows. Why? Because Marx said so, even though the historical record says otherwise!

In fact, and unknown to Ricardian economists or Marx, industrial Capitalism could not have emerged without the conscious decision of nations to allow for the rise of interest rates to free market heights, abandoning low interest rates policies, such low interest rates policies making possible the Mercantilist pre-industrial Capitalist era. Only with higher, market-based interest rates is it possible to accumulate the necessary large quantities of capital for industrial enterprise.

During the Mercantilist era low interest rates ensured that only consumption-based investments could take place, such investments requiring relatively little capital expenditures, such low capital expenditures being a function of the expected return on the investment, which return is based on the low interest rate policy being followed by Mercantilist nations. Industrial ventures, on the other hand, require large expenditures of capital, such amounts only made possible by a higher rate of return that can recoup the larger capital outlay, a higher rate of return that is made possible only with higher, market-based, interest rates.

Anyone after 1847 could have demolished Marx's materialist philosophy (which is where "productive forces" comes from) by noting the above objections to Marx's handmill/steam mill observation, thereby sparing us three volumes of Capital. In fact, someone did just that...Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Marxists (or whoever "Marxists" really are) pretend Proudhon didn't demolish Marx.------------------------------(see first comment for available links to titles cited)

1. Capital, Karl Marx, p.27.

2. Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, Thomas Sowell, p.109

3. The Poverty of Philosophy, p. 109 (takes into account the changes and corrections introduced by Marx into the copy presented to N. Utina in 1876).

4. Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, Thomas Sowell, p.56.

5. The Poverty of Philosophy, p. 138 (takes into account the changes and corrections introduced by Marx into the copy presented to N. Utina in 1876).----------------------------------------Revised Addendum: Formulated on February 25, 2014, 10:30 AM EST

Proof that Marx's Law of Value (which posits that labor is the sole source of value, imputing that value into commodities) is in error:

If all the machines created throughout the history of man were to have been kept within the confines of the minds of their creators, that is never manufactured, would such machines be imputed with value in a Marxist sense? Yes, they should equal the POTENTIAL value of their labor.

Now, since actual labor is required for there to be potential value, and there is no actual labor to speak of, then the potential imputation of labor value into machines/commodities is zero, and therefore Marx's Law of Value is in error.

In fact, the proof affirms that imputation of a commodity's value can't be anything physical, it must be subjective...that is in the mind of the observer.--------------------------------------Addendum (July 18, 2014):

The following nicely illustrates how net (new) investment (productivity increases) took place before medium of exchange, while (1) also illustrating how such net (new) investments spurred trade between separated communities; and (2) clarifying Marx's confusion as to what came first to alter social relations, (i) machines; or (ii) something else preceding machines...

Tribe A saved more by looking for food less, placing that saved time into creating a net that would increase the catch of fish. We can say that Tribe A has a greater productive edge than does Tribe B, whose members are still using sharpened sticks to catch fish--very laborious and relatively unproductive.

Now Tribe A decides, due to its higher productivity/wealth, it can afford to save more time, adding this saved time to the saved time it used for making fishing nets, and build a boat that will allow their nets to catch even more fish. Being busy building boats, Tribe A allows Tribe B to build the nets--a less productive venture than the new boat-building venture is. Tribe A's greater productivity thanks to fishing boats (and greater wealth thanks to fishing boats) allows for more children, increasing the tribe's population, allowing for a larger labor supply in the near future that will be available for procuring other innovative, labor-saving inventions.

In the modern economy the money we save is the "saved time" that Tribe A used to construct nets/boats, but since the rate of interest is being intentionally kept low by the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, there can be no new capital formation (money that's used for new long-term productive investments) in Western economies (nor Japan) for new productive ventures, because the lure for such new investments--the higher rate of return that higher, market-based, interest rates offer--is non-existent; the central bank mandated low interest rate policy won't cover the loan on the massive outlay of capital that net (new) productive projects require.

By the way, notice what comes first in the above illustration, contradicting Marx's claim that the "material productive forces" (machines) are the INITIAL venue by which societies alter their values/relationships...people had to "save time" FIRST by curtailing their quest for food.* Now in the modern economy, where money is used, FIRST comes the necessity of market-based interest rates that allows for the accumulation of capital that THEN produces the labor-saving machines! The higher the market-based interest rate, the better for capital accumulation.-----------------------------------*Incredibly, Marx was unaware (or more likely, deluded himself into unawareness) of this critical sequence.Read more ›

First, I did not agree with it. It is a good read in order to understand another political view point. It places little value on religion. The individual is inferior to the State. Capitalism is evil. This book is a good book to read to understand what Communism is all about. I'll read it again and take notes this time.

* One of the most influential books of all time that changed the world

* Unique view of how history has progressed

* Compelling critique of capitalism

* Introduces a completely novel economic system

CONs:

* Many of the complaints lodged against capitalism do not hold nearly as much weight now

* Hard to fully comprehend without a pretty good understanding of European history and economic history

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed."

The Communist Manifesto covers a very large amount of information in a very short amount of time. This inevitably means that the statements made are not fully supported, but this is not the point of a manifesto, the purpose of which is to powerfully and coherently state a set of goals for a particular party.

I think the first part of the manifesto was the most interesting. In it a unique (but brief) evaluation of history is given, with Marx's famous "class struggle" statement. It is concluded that all antagonisms and conflicts in history have their root in class warfare (nobleman and serf, freeman and slave, etc.) Up until Marx's time, each epoch in history had many different classes, and each time a lower classes would rebel against the upper class minority, the only thing accomplished would be a reconstructed class system with the same root problem. Marx says that in the 19th century, we have the opportunity to completely do away with the class system altogether due to the fact that this is the only time in history where the classes are so distinct: the proletariat (working class majority) and the bourgeoisie (minority that controls most of the capital due to the labor of the working class). Marx says that if the proletariat is able to overthrow the corrupt and exploitative bourgeoisie, unlike all earlier revolutions, there will be a complete transformation in society rather than simply a new reorganization due to the fact that there will be only one class - the proletariat. This means the problem of class antagonism that has so bloodied history would be over.

After explaining how history has progressed and contrasting earlier epochs with the 19th century, the manifesto goes into a compelling critique of capitalist society. Essentially it is said that capitalism has reduced all that is good and noble in the world to the mere accumulation of profit. People are no longer seen as people; they are simply machines to increase labor and thus increase capital. A person's worth is only measured by how much capital he can produce for the ruling bourgeoisie. This is an extremely convincing anti capitalist argument, but it doesn't quite hold up to modern standards. In our time, the proletariat is not exploited anywhere near as horribly as they were in Marx's time. We now have worker unions, worker's rights, shorter workdays, labor limits, laws preventing child labor, safety regulations, higher minimum wage, etc. This was apparently not the case in 1847. One of Marx's biggest problems with capitalism was that only a small minority of bourgeoisie controlled all of the property, while the vast majority proletariat had nothing even though they do all the work. This is not the case today, where most people in industrialized societies have plenty of property for themselves. To me, this is the major reason why The Communist Manifesto does not hold up to modern times (but it couldn't be expected to).

The next part (chapter II) of the manifesto is Marx's illustration of an economic system where all are equals and no one's labor is exploited for the profits of others - communism. I do not have the requisite understanding of economics to say how viable or nonviable communism is compared with capitalism or socialism. I will say that Marx does make communism sound quite appealing. As said earlier, there are no classes in communism so everyone is equal. Labor is not performed simply for profit of a few but for the benefit of all. There is no government controlling what is done in society; the people rule themselves and perform based on the needs of all. The main argument I hear against this system is that with no private property to obtain, there is no incentive to work. Marx counters this by saying the proletariat never had any property to begin with and yet they still worked. Communism is a very utopian idea where everyone works together for the equal good of everyone, no one benefiting more than any other. I don't know how viable this can possibly be seeing as how history has given us no example where someone does not try to take power in order to exploit the weak. In fact, this is exactly what we've seen with the regimes in the 20th century that tried to implement a communist economy - far from a society with no ruling class, they become totalitarian regimes with only a few controlling all the property - exactly what Marx criticised about capitalism. Again, I will leave it to the economists to discuss the most viable economic systems.

Next (chapter III) comes Marx's brief outline and critique of other socialist literature. I did not take away much from this section as it seems that Marx took it as a given that his readers would already be familiar with these various positions, and went straight into the critique without actually explaining what it was he was critiquing. You can somewhat figure out the positions simply based on the critique, but, as mentioned, the critiques are brief and I was still left somewhat lost. A comparison would be reading 19th century critiques of opposing theories to biological evolution without ever having heard of these opposing theories due to evolution being the only accepted theory in our time. This is not so much a knock on the manifesto, since Marx was clearly writing for his contemporaries, but even so things like this throughout the book take away some enjoyment and add confusion.

Chapter IV, the last chapter, is a very short annunciation of the relationship of communism to other movements in various countries, ending with a vigorating call to arms for the working class.

I give the manifesto three stars for two reasons: one being that, as mentioned before, many of the critiques of capitalism do not hold much weight 150+ years later, reducing the manifesto's economic value to merely that of historical significance. The second reason being that even the historical significance will be reduced if the reader does not have at least moderate knowledge of European history, particularly that of the 17th and 18th centuries. In fact, the first time I read the manifesto I wasn't able to take much of anything away from it. I read it a second time after I took four college economics classes and a few history classes and was able to comprehend about 80% of it. Despite these complaints, it is still highly recommended.

"All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away; all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind."Read more ›